Dinahmo
Callistemon21
Dinahmo
Surely whilst they're sitting at the table you aren't going to see their genitals?
They have to get to the table!
One could look away.
One could - and probably would. And if 'one' is sitting some distance away, there's even less opportunity to see anything. But not so for those seated close by - unless the pub staff have cleared an area specially for the couple.
But none of this is to the point, is it?
We wear underwear for a reason - does that need pointing out? That we put a layer of material between those often damp and sweaty parts of the body and the outerwear. Shall I further point out that not everyone is fastidious when having to relieve themselves - either through carelessness or lack of the necessary facilities to clean up. A pub is more often than not an intimate space, that's part of its attraction, Some pubs / bistros and other eating places will not allow men with bare chests, or wearing vests - they know it can be off-putting being confronted with sweaty and hairy armpits when you are eating.
That's why there's a huge difference between that environment and naturists outdoors on the beach, or sunbathing, swimming, hiking, etc.
... and the reason I'm labouring the point is because it appears those of us who object to the principle of Neil and Danielle sitting on their bin liners are being treated as if they are the odd ones out.
And why didn't the silly person on the pub staff who wanted to be "inclusive" and use it as a 'learning experience" give the couple permission and exclude those who were already in the pub by not consulting them! Maybe they didn't want to be part of this learning experience.
